Encountering anti-D&D sentiment

[Mark]

Teflon Billy was recruited to our ranks thanks to this kind of small town prejudice. He grew up in a Bible Belt town where the newspapers and local religious leaders routinely declared that D&D cause you to worship Satan and kill people. So, with no other information to go on, he immediately became a gamer.

It goes deeper than that. Having hung out with T-Bill, smart money is on T-Bill being distantly related to Satan. And now that I have posted T-Bill's name three times...

 

[takyris]

Oh, for heaven's sake, be reasonable.

If you're talking to someone who doesn't know the first thing about roleplaying games, then saying, "I write for Mongoose Publishing, which puts out several RPGs that are either d20-based or OGC and usable with the d20 system, but separate because of licensing requirements," doesn't convey as much useful information as "I write for D&D."

If the woman hadn't been weird about it, the follow-up would have been something like, "Right, actually, I'm writing for a company that writes tie-in books, stuff you can use with the D&D game to get the right feel -- kind of like accessorizing."

If you come onto ENWorld and say, "I write for D&D," we all look at you funny, because the default assumption is that any ENWorlder knows enough about the hobby to be comfortable handling more information, and we almost all know that D&D is a game, not a company, so that statement doesn't really work. But as the most efficient way to convey information to an outsider, understanding that further clarification may be necessary as the conversation continues, I hardly think this constitutes a party foul.

 

[Silver Moon]

I actually had an opposite experience last weekend. My 11-year-old daughter wants me to start a D&D group for several of her friends. Bear in mind, I live in a rather conserative small town.

So I spoke to her best friend's parents about it, expecting to have to go into a long explanation of what the game is and how their preconceived notions about it are wrong. Instead, they liked the idea. The father even commented about how he used to play it himself.

 

[Mark]

Tacky - That's why I suggest approaching from the position of a total outsider, by mentioning things like LotR, Harry Potter, and, perhaps, Conan. It's likely, to me, that of the people who know about D&D most have only heard of it and probably have negative preconceptions. Of those who have played RPGs, many might now play D&D, but there's likely a good number who prefer other games (perhaps even vehemently disliking D&D). Of the ones who do play D&D, and understand that it is OK to do so, the next thing you're going to have to do is then explain how you don't really write for D&D at all. So why bother saying it when it just mucks things all up in the majority of circumstances?

 

[Mark]

Ya know, it's kinda like someone with a mail route telling people that he works for the President of the US. True? Sure. Does the semi-misleading explanation wind up being more trouble than it is worth? I think so.

 

[reanjr]

I've found that for a lot of people, "take on the part of a character" equates with dressing up and running around. Many I meet think D&D is the same as LARPing. Getting over that hump is the first challenge. I usually compare it to games most people know and understand. "It's no different than pretending to be a detective or real estate developer in games like Clue and Monopoly, only a lot more detailed. You play it sitting at a table; you decide what you want to do; and the rules tell you what happens."

Yeah, that's why I describe it as group storytelling with rules and dice.

 

[takyris]

Ya know, it's kinda like someone with a mail route telling people that he works for the President of the US. True? Sure. Does the semi-misleading explanation wind up being more trouble than it is worth? I think so.

Mark, no offense, but if you equate someone who writes for a d20 publisher saying "I write for D&D" to an outsider with a postal carrier saying "I work for the President of the U.S.", I think we have more glaring problems in communication. Don't get me wrong -- it's a cute analogy that does a nice job of cutting my point off at the knee if you don't really think about it -- but back when I was trying out for the Mongoose publishing job (in case you were wondering: No), I got to explain to several non-gamers in a row the concept of writing d20/OGL products for a gaming company. They knew what D&D was. It was far easier to say, "Writing for D&D" and then go into detail about the SRD and Wizards and Mongoose and such only when it became necessary than it was to start out explaining about the d20 SRD and Open Gaming and such.

On the other hand, since they already knew what D&D was, it was easy enough to start out with D&D, rather than using your Tolkien/Conan riffs.


Me: Yeah, so the job I'm applying for involves writing for Mongoose Publishing.

Dad: Do they do D&D?

Me: Well, they do games that are compatible with D&D. It's kind of like--

Dad: Is it like a Honda versus a Toyota?

Me: No, well, not really, see Mongoose puts out Conan and Starship Troopers--

Dad: So you're going to be doing movies?

Me: No, see, Wizards of the Coast publishes D&D, and they've released the core components--

Dad: I thought you said Mongoose did D&D.

Me: Well, actually, I said that Mongoose did games that were compatible with the core components, and were used by a license--

Dad: So, you'd be writing for D&D, then?

Me: Um... yes. Yes, I would.

Dad: That's great, son. Go get 'em.

Don't get me wrong -- I love your Tolkein/Conan riffs. I think that's a great way to approach it, and I think it might cause less tension. Personally, I've also gotten good mileage out of, "Like Choose Your Own Adventures books, only you're with a group, and you all get to slay dragons and save good people from monsters," but I think yours capitalizes well on the current trends. In fact, your riff is, I think preferable to saying "I write for D&D" if you're not sure about the kind of reception you're going to get.

But I just don't buy that saying "I write for D&D" to somebody who isn't a gamer for simplicity's sake is the kind of falsehood you make it out to be. It's not like you're telling someone who doesn't know much about football that you're the quarterback for the Rams.

 

[Mark]

Tacky - Sounds like you're annoyed with your Dad, and I would probably be, too, if he kept cutting me off in mid-explanation like that. Still...

But I just don't buy that saying "I write for D&D" to somebody who isn't a gamer for simplicity's sake is the kind of falsehood you make it out to be. It's not like you're telling someone who doesn't know much about football that you're the quarterback for the Rams.

If a security guard at the stadium where the Rams play told me he was "with the team", I'd feel the same way. I wouldn't use the word "falsehood", because in a broad sense, it is kinda true. Nevertheless, it does lead someone to draw certain conclusions that aren't true and only wind up needing to be cleared up down the road. I think it is kinda lazy, at best, and not worth the trouble it might tend to cause. Still, do as you will. Just don't be surprised if people call you on it sometimes. The mere fact that it requires a drawn out rationalization to discuss when by not making the claim in the first place it isn't even an issue ought to tell you something.

 

[DaveMage]

DaveMage quite clearly was saying, essentially, that this lady was a right-wing religious nut "unless you are speaking from their pulpet, you won't be able to convince them otherwise." despite nothing to suggest that she was religious at all, and then implied that by being religious means that "Logic and reasoning is irrelevant to these people. (I know because I've met some of them.)"

That's not jumping to unsupported conclusions, that's taking exactly what's written at face value. Granted, I did get a bit sidetracked into assuming that he suffers from a pretty pervasive delusion that gamers are better than other people, which I don't know at all from his posts, actually, but I already stated that.

I can see how you could think that, but I certainly do not think she's a "right-wing religious nut". Merely, that some people are influenced so heavily by what they have been told, or their faith in their church is so strong, that trying to convince them otherwise using logic and reasoning (as opposed to faith-based arguments) is irrelevant to them.

Again, this is not to say that I'm so smart and understand the universe (hell, I don't even remember where I put my keys half the time), but rather that there are those who are unimpressed and unmoved by a non-faith-based argument.

I have a friend who I care about deeply who feels pretty much the same way as the woman Bret encountered. We don't see eye-to-eye on many things, but that doesn't mean I value her any less as a person. I do apologize if the tone of my post made it seem otherwise.

 

[fusangite]

Mark, to take absurd irrelevant reductionism with more of the same,

DUDE, ARE YOU ON CRACK?